The rebate would be drawn from the significant amount of tariff revenue collected by the U.S. government—over $100 billion in the first half of 2025 alone, according to Treasury data.

Trump’s remarks about these rebate checks maybe being targeted to Americans “of a certain income level,” suggesting they would likely be means-tested, but Trump offered few details about the exact income thresholds or amount of the rebate.

The stated purposes of the rebate are to compensate Americans who may have faced higher prices due to the tariffs and potentially provide a small economic stimulus, which gives new meaning to Trump’s remarks about businesses “eating the tariffs,” with much economic debate about who is really footing the bill for them.

Any such rebate policy would likely require congressional approval, and lawmakers like Sen. Josh Hawley have indicated support for legislation that would deliver rebate checks to working Americans, but no bill text or timetable has been specified. If enacted, the administration would need to establish eligibility rules, application or automatic distribution methods, and payment logistics. This could resemble past stimulus check programs, but that is just theoretical at this point.

The rebate concept is distinct from legal or administrative tariff refunds to importers, which have been considered or mandated following court rulings questioning the legality of some tariffs. In such cases, refunds would go to the companies that paid the import duties, not directly to end consumers.

Is this legal?

Trump’s proposed tariff refund checks—rebates funded by tariff revenue and distributed directly to American consumers—would almost certainly require explicit legislation from Congress to be legally valid, given that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to levy tariffs and appropriate federal funds. 

The president can impose certain tariffs under delegated statutory authorities, but courts have repeatedly found that the sweeping use of these powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is not legal. Multiple recent court rulings (including a unanimous U.S. Court of International Trade decision) have blocked Trump’s broad tariffs for lacking legal basis under IEEPA, yet the tariffs remain in place pending appeal, and theoretically, a Supreme Court ruling.

Trump’s busy July

The suggestion of tariff rebate checks or refund checks is another new policy suggestion from Trump in a July that has been full of them, as Washington, D.C. has been roiled by a metastasizing scandal involving disgraced deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Trump’s Justice Department is facing bipartisan criticism for its decision not to release the so-called Epstein files, which the Justice Department has said do not exist. The Wall Street Journal has had a series of scoops about Trump’s past closeness to Epstein, including Trump’s name being mentioned in the files.

In July, Trump said he had reached agreement with Coca-Cola to bring real sugar back into the Coke formula, which the company partially confirmed days later. He also demanded the Washington Commanders football team revert to their former “Redskins” name, threatening political obstruction for their stadium project if they did not comply. He announced the release of 230,000 files related to Martin Luther King Jr. And he escalated his feud with the Federal Reserve and chair Jerome Powell, visiting the in-process office renovations in a hard hat and engaging in a bizarre, comedic argument with Powell about cost overruns on live television.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.